Do we really need guns everywhere? Update: it Passes

[Ikohn4ever]

Park rangers oppose bid to ease gun ban

By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer Mon Feb 25, 8:14 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Park rangers, retirees and conservation groups are protesting a plan by the Interior Department to reconsider regulations restricting loaded guns in national parks.

The groups say current regulations requiring that visitors to national parks render their weapons inaccessible were working and have made national parks among the safest places in America.
"Loaded guns are not needed and are not appropriate in our national parks," said Doug Morris, a retired park superintendent and member of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.


The plan to reconsider the gun regulations "could break what is not broken and change the nature of our national parks," Morris said Monday.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said Friday that his department will review gun laws on lands administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Officials will draw up new rules by April 30 for public comment, Kempthorne said in a letter to 50 senators who requested the review.
The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates hailed the announcement as the first step to relax a decades-old ban on bringing loaded firearms into national parks.


"Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.
A Kempthorne spokesman emphasized the review was in its early stages, but said it made sense to update regulations that were last changed in the early 1980s.
"It's appropriate to look at updating these regulations, to bring them into conformity with state laws" on guns use, said Chris Paolino, an Interior Department spokesman.
Conservation groups and park rangers disagreed, saying the plan amounted to surrender to the NRA.


The gun ban "has not been a major issue at national parks in recent years," said Bryan Faehner of the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group.
The restrictions, which require that guns be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk, "were reasonable then and are reasonable now," Faehner said. "This is not about guns. It's not about parks. It's a hardball political issue injected by the NRA in an election year," he said.
Kempthorne's announcement follows letters complaining about the gun restriction from half the Senate — 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.
Sen. Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican who organized the letters, said he was pleased that Kempthorne — a former Idaho governor and senator — was "taking steps to uphold the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment and eliminate inconsistent regulations."


Crapo and other lawmakers had complained to Kempthorne that the existing guidelines were "confusing, burdensome and unnecessary."
The dispute over guns in parks has spilled into the Senate, where it is holding up a vote on a massive public lands bill. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has sponsored an amendment that would allow gun owners to carry loaded, accessible firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has blocked a vote on the amendment, saying it is not related to the underlying bill, which would expand wilderness protection in several Western states and establish national heritage areas in several other states, among dozens of provisions.
Democrats also accuse Coburn of bad faith, saying he only raised the politically charged gun issue after the letters to Kempthorne were made public.




Why not guns in libraries, in hospitals, and in the White House. I mean the 2nd ammendment doesn't say anything about not having guns there. So obviously everyone should be allowed to have guns in every possible location. The real question is are spear guns covered under the 2nd ammendment, because that new national park that bush setup in Hawaii, people should be allowed guns while scuba diving, cause after all that is what the founding fathers intended.

Update:

WASHINGTON — People will soon be able to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.
The Bush administration said Friday it is overturning a 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricts loaded guns in national parks.
Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge _ but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.
The new rule goes further than a draft proposal issued last spring and would allow concealed weapons even in parks located in states that explicitly ban the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.
"If you can carry (a gun) on Main Street, you are allowed to carry in a national park," said Chris Paolino. a spokesman for the Interior Department.
The Interior Department rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.
Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.
The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.
Story continues below http://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/v/darr.gif



The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.
"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.
The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.
The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.
Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, said no decision had been made on the gun rule.
"President-elect Obama will review all eleventh-hour regulations and will address them once he is president," he said.
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, hailed the new rule. Crapo and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had organized letters to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne complaining about the gun restrictions. The letters were signed by half the Senate _ 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.
"I congratulate Secretary Kempthorne for taking this stand. The rule as it has come out is what we asked for with regard to handguns," Crapo said. "It's a very, very significant improvement."
Crapo called the current rule confusing and complex and said it "literally resulted in different standards as you traveled through the same state."
But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the new rule was a mistake.
"The Reagan-era rules have stood the test of time and make our national parks safe for all who visit them," Feinstein said. "The Bush administration changes will make our national parks more dangerous and will upset the delicate balance that exists between park visitors and wildlife."
Interior spokesman Paolino said the rule would not affect a ban on guns in federal buildings. Guns will still be prohibited in national icons such as Independence Hall and the Statue of Liberty, he said. Guns also will be banned in visitor centers and other buildings at national parks.

[Sarang01]

I believe in being able to carry guns in a national park and don't at the same time.

My fear is most people will use it to hunt more then anything. On the other hand if a bear DOES actually attack me what the fuck can I use to defend myself with other then that. It's not like they'd let me bring in a Machete or Sword and with a knife I'd probably be slashed half to death and maybe get in a few cuts. Saying this I could see some people faking and say "That BEAR attacked me!" actually inciting it or shooting it to get a trophy.
Even with all this said I'd say only 3 bullets should be allowed with any gun brought in.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Get over it.

[Sarang01]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Get over it.

hugs foc. You know how they want to take our guns.

[mykevermin]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Get over it.

Why don't you go visit your state building with your conceal-and-carry in your jacket and see how far words get you?

[E-Z-B]

Isn't a "militia" a police force today?

[trq]

Isn't a "militia" a police force today?

Shush. That's book learnin'. Don't be bringing your fancy liberal knowledge of the past in here. STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS ONLY, y'hear?

[camoor]

Do you want King George III coming into your federal parks and bossing you around? Do you?

All kidding aside, why are so many people willing to trade their rights for the promise of greater security from the government? How does it make sense that you're safer if the govt is the only one with the guns?

[Ikohn4ever]

Do you want King George III coming into your federal parks and bossing you around? Do you?

All kidding aside, why are so many people willing to trade their rights for the promise of greater security from the government? How does it make sense that you're safer if the govt is the only one with the guns?


I am fine with guns, but can't we keep a park gun free unless it is a designated hunting area. Just because you are allowed to do something doesnt mean you should always do it. Ohh and attacks on people from wild animals at national parks is probably less than killer bee attacks. It is probably statistically insignificant.

[pittpizza]

The second amendment, when taken in context, is completely fuckin useless today. Militia's to fend off the English!? Pah-lease! It, and the rampant gun ownership it allows, kills so many damn people in this country a year it makes me sick.

This, coupled with the fact that your gun-owning Americans are stereotypicaly trigger-happy shoot-first types riddled with fear who keep their minds and curtains closed makes for a very dangerous combination.

[camoor]

I am fine with guns, but can't we keep a park gun free unless it is a designated hunting area. Just because you are allowed to do something doesnt mean you should always do it. Ohh and attacks on people from wild animals at national parks is probably less than killer bee attacks. It is probably statistically insignificant.

I don't really care if there are no animal attacks.

Patchworking federal law into states that allow more freedoms and civil liberties to their constituents doesn't make any sense to me. The fed already has enough power with the carrots it dangles to states for more restrictive and invasive govt, I'm all for any law in which states have more say in the laws that will be enforced within their borders.

[JolietJake]

You really have to consider what the country was like when that was written. The British aren't going to come into your home and demand boarding any time soon. If you think we're gonna have some national uprisings with people over throwing the government with their guns, think again. The government has more and bigger guns than even the craziest gun nut could hope to get their hands on.

Personally i'm more worried about billy joe bob getting liquored up and deciding to have some "fun" with his gun. This being the south and all, it's probably more likely than i think.

[Hex]

When people brought up the hunting rifle vs. government argument, I used to point out what a great job our military is doing in Iraq. Now I guess I'm convinced the military would quash any uprising these days, considering that it would be on American soil.

[benjamouth]

The second amendment, when taken in context, is completely fuckin useless today. Militia's to fend off the English!? Pah-lease

Well I'm English, and to be honest we're all just waiting for some stricter gun laws to be passed in the US so we can all rush over and invade.

We're gonna make you play cricket instead of baseball, admit it's really called football not soccer and make you say "Al-u-mini-um" instead of "Alu-min-num".

On the bright side you'll get a free national health service (well apart from the extra tax you'll pay) and as you'll be british the rest of the world will like you more (except the French and Germans). Of course your teeth will be a lot worse.

So in summary please vote Clinton in 08.

[CannibalCrowley]

Why don't you go visit your state building with your conceal-and-carry in your jacket and see how far words get you?

Been there, done that; it wasn't a problem.

[GuilewasNK]

This is all the weapon I need.

http://www.punchstock.com/image/photodisc/7454741/comp/8239.jpg

I grew up in a military family and I have seen my share of guns, but I don't need or want to own one.

[JolietJake]

Well I'm English, and to be honest we're all just waiting for some stricter gun laws to be passed in the US so we can all rush over and invade.

We're gonna make you play cricket instead of baseball, admit it's really called football not soccer and make you say "Al-u-mini-um" instead of "Alu-min-num".

On the bright side you'll get a free national health service (well apart from the extra tax you'll pay) and as you'll be british the rest of the world will like you more (except the French and Germans). Of course your teeth will be a lot worse.

So in summary please vote Clinton in 08.Well, at least dentists will have a lot more patients.

[JolietJake]

Been there, done that; it wasn't a problem.
They probably didn't know you had it. Try walking into a state capital building with them knowing you have it.

[Hex]

Well I'm English, and to be honest we're all just waiting for some stricter gun laws to be passed in the US so we can all rush over and invade.

We're gonna make you play cricket instead of baseball, admit it's really called football not soccer and make you say "Al-u-mini-um" instead of "Alu-min-num".

On the bright side you'll get a free national health service (well apart from the extra tax you'll pay) and as you'll be british the rest of the world will like you more (except the French and Germans). Of course your teeth will be a lot worse.

So in summary please vote Clinton in 08.

Except for the teeth and Clinton, sounds good to me. At least I'll think the food will have improved. Yorkshire pudding? Sign me up, mate.

Plus we can use awesome phrases, like 'cocked up'. I already pronounce specialty like 'Spess-ee-all-ity' rather than 'Speshul-tee'. :lol:

[usickenme]

How does it make sense that you're safer if the govt is the only one with the guns?


at this point ,the govenment having all the gun is a moot point. They have so much other weaponary gun are most likely insignificant.

[paz9x]

I have an issue with not being able to carry a firearm in a national park. were not talking about well trafficed parks here. some national parks span huge areas that may be fairly remote.
I think taking away the right to defend yourself and your family is wrong.

would this make carrying an unloaded weapon, while still having ammunition on you illegal?
for instance could one carry a handgun with a loaded but seperate magazine?

The hunting issue would be the only real issue. I dont think the vast majority of hunters would consider the opportunity of taking their rifles into a national park to hunt. But people are idiots so im sure there are some.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Here's the point of the Second Amendment:

If the citizenry cannot peacefully change the government through voting to represent their interests, the citizenry uses the guns to change the government through violence.

Let's take a hypothetical:

If all voting was done through electronic voting machines and it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt (think guilty in a criminal court) that the machines were fraudulent and the "winners" of the election openingly admitted they had cheated and said "winners" stated they wouldn't step down from power willingly, would you grab a guitar or a gun to rectify the situation?

EDIT: The Founders put in the Second Amendment as a failsafe against tyranny (not just the English).

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Isn't a "militia" a police force today?

No, militia are unpaid volunteers.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Do you want King George III coming into your federal parks and bossing you around? Do you?

All kidding aside, why are so many people willing to trade their rights for the promise of greater security from the government? How does it make sense that you're safer if the govt is the only one with the guns?


What if the King of England came in here and started pushing you around? -Homer

[pittpizza]

We could also say "Adver tis ments"

And to whoever said he took his weapon into the local state building, unless you're the bailiff you're lieing through your teeth, I don't care what state your in.

[mykevermin]

Here's the point of the Second Amendment:

If the citizenry cannot peacefully change the government through voting to represent their interests, the citizenry uses the guns to change the government through violence.

Let's take a hypothetical:

If all voting was done through electronic voting machines and it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt (think guilty in a criminal court) that the machines were fraudulent and the "winners" of the election openingly admitted they had cheated and said "winners" stated they wouldn't step down from power willingly, would you grab a guitar or a gun to rectify the situation?

EDIT: The Founders put in the Second Amendment as a failsafe against tyranny (not just the English).

Irrespective of your desire to put words in the pens of the founders of this country and still falsely claim the mantle of a "strict constitutionalist" interpretation - what does *any* of what you've just said have to do with whether or not you can bring weapons into national parks?

[Xevious]

I never owned a gun but one time an ex-con moved in my neighborhood and I felt unsafe. He would get drunk and become violent. He even went to some of my neighbors (these 2 guys who are in college) and started banging on the door and screamed "Come out here..I want to fuck you up the ass!". This guy was as big as a NFL linebacker and really scary.

After awhile, I went ahead and started researching guns. I was thinking about applying for a gun license and buying a pistol for my apartment in case the Ex-con decided to do anything foolish.

Eventually he got fired from his job and he couldn't pay the rent so he got evicted. I never got to buy the gun (thankfully) and it all worked out.

I'm not really fond of guns but I thought I was in a situation where owning a gun became a necessity..This ex-con said a lot of crazy shit to me and I knew he was really unstable. I also know that I can't really do anything unless he would enter my apartment without permission. He seemed like he was quite capable of doing that though...

[camoor]

If you think we're gonna have some national uprisings with people over throwing the government with their guns, think again. The government has more and bigger guns than even the craziest gun nut could hope to get their hands on.

It's an interesting question.

Someone pointed out the tough time America is having in Iraq despite having vastly superior firepower - it should also be pointed out that much devastation in the American Civil War was avoided because once Lee had been defeated he made the honorable choice to formally surrender rather then launching an all-out guerilla war. Think what kind of landscape we would be living in had he made a different decision. No doubt a fascist could nominally assume control of the United States but I don't believe he'd be able to fully supress all rebellion and secession.

The craziest gun nuts already have the biggest and baddest guns - the craziest gun nuts are the government. And people want to give away more freedoms for the hollow promise of more safety? Take guns away from criminals, take them away from thieves, pimps, murderers - but not from the People.

[camoor]

What if the King of England came in here and started pushing you around? -Homer

Glad someone caught the reference and the fact I was joking with that one-liner.

[CannibalCrowley]

They probably didn't know you had it. Try walking into a state capital building with them knowing you have it.

A – Concealed means concealed.
B – The building isn’t on the list of prohibited carry areas:

http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10947--,00.html

· Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian

· Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.

· Sports arena or stadium

· A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises

· Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons

· An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more

· A hospital

· A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university

· A Casino

Plus:
"Weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with the court's written policy."

[camoor]

I even went to some of my neighbors (these 2 guys who are in college) and started banging on the door and screamed "Come out here..I want to fuck you up the ass!".

:shock:

[benjamouth]

I even went to some of my neighbors (these 2 guys who are in college) and started banging on the door and screamed "Come out here..I want to fuck you up the ass!".

Sigged, classic.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Irrespective of your desire to put words in the pens of the founders of this country and still falsely claim the mantle of a "strict constitutionalist" interpretation - what does *any* of what you've just said have to do with whether or not you can bring weapons into national parks?

Most of my response was in relation to people thinking the Second Amendment isn't relevant. It is QUITE relevant given the direction of our government.

Regarding parks:

The second amendment doesn't read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in national parks."


The park cannot put a constitutional law into affect that limits any person's ability to keep or to bear arms.


When the Second Amendment is repealed, the parks can pass whatever silly law they think a criminal will obey.

[Mookyjooky]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in national parks."

This was also written about 200 years ago.

Dont eat meat from pigs, keep all your slaves and incest is good by God. Go for it!

[pittpizza]

WTF Xevious, you went to your neighbors door and banged on it and told em you wanted to fuck em up the ass?

I'd be more scared of living next to you than your neighbor.

If, in fact, you actually meant to type "He" instead of "I", well then in that case....HA HA!

[CannibalCrowley]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in national parks."

This was also written about 200 years ago.

So was this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Should we get rid of that Amendment as well?

[camoor]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in national parks."

This was also written about 200 years ago.

Dont eat meat from pigs, keep all your slaves and incest is good by God. Go for it!

This post is almost in Godwin's law territory. Why are you comparing arcane unenforced Biblical law with a well-reasoned, relevant, and current law penned by Deist revolutionaries who believed in freedom and the democratic republic? Simply because they were both written more then two centuries ago?

Please tell me we're not entering the "America's law is based on Judeo-Christian foundations" claptrap again.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in national parks."

This was also written about 200 years ago.

Dont eat meat from pigs, keep all your slaves and incest is good by God. Go for it!

Actually, that version of the Second Amendment was written around 2:15PM today :lol:.

[daroga]

Am I a bad conservative if I find the fascination with everyone carrying weapons a categorically terrible idea? I'm not going to fight to get the 2nd amendment repealed or anything, but I wouldn't shed too many tears if it was.

I'd be much happier assuming that the drunk guys camping next to me at a national park weren't packing heat, actually. That would make me feel safer than knowing I could defend myself against a wildlife attack or some sort of government coup.

[GuilewasNK]

I never owned a gun but one time an ex-con moved in my neighborhood and I felt unsafe. He would get drunk and become violent. I even went to some of my neighbors (these 2 guys who are in college) and started banging on the door and screamed "Come out here..I want to fuck you up the ass!". This guy was as big as a NFL linebacker and really scary.

After awhile, I went ahead and started researching guns. I was thinking about applying for a gun license and buying a pistol for my apartment in case the Ex-con decided to do anything foolish.

Eventually he got fired from his job and he couldn't pay the rent so he got evicted. I never got to buy the gun (thankfully) and it all worked out.

I'm not really fond of guns but I thought I was in a situation where owning a gun became a necessity..This ex-con said a lot of crazy shit to me and I knew he was really unstable. I also know that I can't really do anything unless he would enter my apartment without permission. He seemed like he was quite capable of doing that though...


Maybe that is why I never wanted a gun. I am a nice guy, and don't do anything to draw attention to myself, but I am 6' 6" 285 lbs so I don't have people acting like they want to start shit with me.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Am I a bad conservative if I find the fascination with everyone carrying weapons a categorically terrible idea?

Absolutely not. Some people have no ability to handle guns, cars, kids or TV remotes.

However, what is written in the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[camoor]

Am I a bad conservative if I find the fascination with everyone carrying weapons a categorically terrible idea? I'm not going to fight to get the 2nd amendment repealed or anything, but I wouldn't shed too many tears if it was.

I'd be much happier assuming that the drunk guys camping next to me at a national park weren't packing heat, actually. That would make me feel safer than knowing I could defend myself against a wildlife attack or some sort of government coup.

You'd be a conservative who thinks for himself, and the majority of conservatives think that's bad.

Then again:
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
- J. S. Mill

[JolietJake]

Here's the point of the Second Amendment:

If the citizenry cannot peacefully change the government through voting to represent their interests, the citizenry uses the guns to change the government through violence.

Let's take a hypothetical:

If all voting was done through electronic voting machines and it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt (think guilty in a criminal court) that the machines were fraudulent and the "winners" of the election openingly admitted they had cheated and said "winners" stated they wouldn't step down from power willingly, would you grab a guitar or a gun to rectify the situation?

EDIT: The Founders put in the Second Amendment as a failsafe against tyranny (not just the English).Very good, except one thing. The government didn't have tactical warheads back then. You know any civilians with a nuke in their back yard?

[JolietJake]

A – Concealed means concealed.
B – The building isn’t on the list of prohibited carry areas:

http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10947--,00.html

· Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian

· Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.

· Sports arena or stadium

· A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises

· Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons

· An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more

· A hospital

· A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university

· A Casino

Plus:
"Weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with the court's written policy."Hmm, maybe in your state. Hard to believe most would be allowed to carry a gun right into the very place where thee state does business.

Also,as far as an armed militia goes, every state has one. It's called the national guard.

[trq]

EDIT: The Founders put in the Second Amendment as a failsafe against tyranny (not just the English).

In theory, I agree -- the one way the past eight years of this administration has made me more stereotypically conservative is that I totally understand the desire to defend yourself from a government that might very well come for you at any moment and make you vanish from the face of the Earth without a trial. However ...

No, militia are unpaid volunteers.

While this isn't untrue, it doesn't address the distinguishing characteristics of a militia as the Founding Fathers would have defined it. It's like calling a car "something you sit in." It's not wrong, but it misses some significant elements.

Most notable to the Founding Fathers was the point that a militia simply wasn't the army. Obvious, yes, but a key issue. Who was the militia answerable to: the citizens, as defined by the local government, or the national government? The citizens, and that's the thrust of why they were vital.

Secondly, what was the ongoing duty of a militia? Keeping the peace. Traditionally that would fall to the army (The first US police department wasn't founded until 1838), but as we all know, the Founding Fathers weren't nuts about giving the army a reason to be up the ass of the citizenry, so peacekeeping and law enforcement would have been the single most frequent activity for a militia.

So ... yes, a militia would essentially be a modern police force. If anyone wants to see this principle in action in modern times, you have only to look at the segregation stand-off in Arkansas in 1957 -- ignoring the point that most of us would side with the federal government on this one, the stand-off ultimately had local police and the Arkansas Nation Guard on one side and 101st Airborne -- under Eisenhower's direct orders -- on the other. Think about that.

So one could make a point that we've overly militarized our law enforcement agencies and National Guard, but that's another debate.

The craziest gun nuts already have the biggest and baddest guns - the craziest gun nuts are the government. And people want to give away more freedoms for the hollow promise of more safety? Take guns away from criminals, take them away from thieves, pimps, murderers - but not from the People.

No. The government isn't crazier than David Koresh. The government isn't crazier than Tim McVeigh.

And people can't give away a "freedom" they didn't have in the first place. Despite what decades of NRA lobbying have gotten people to believe, the "Everyone gets as many guns as they want" interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't what was originally intended.

This post is almost in Godwin's law territory. Why are you comparing arcane unenforced Biblical law with a well-reasoned, relevant, and current law penned by Deist revolutionaries who believed in freedom and the democratic republic? Simply because they were both written more then two centuries ago?

Please tell me we're not entering the "America's law is based on Judeo-Christian foundations" claptrap again.

Perhaps because, like the bible, people have difficulty interpreting the Second Amendment in light of technological advances. There simply weren't anti-armor sniper rifles or fully automatic shotguns around for the Founding Fathers to even imagine the ramifications of. So perhaps a strict Constitutional Constructionist could argue that the Founding Fathers originally intended the Second Amendment to allow every citizen to bear as many arms as they'd like ... but those arms would then have to be wheellock pistols and flintlock muskets, the weapons the Founding Fathers had in mind as they were writing the Amendment. Anything else is selective interpretation.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Very good, except one thing. The government didn't have tactical warheads back then. You know any civilians with a nuke in their back yard?

Nuclear weapons aren't effective against guerrillas or slaves revolting in your fields and factories unless you're willing to give up those fields and factories for 20-80 years.

If one side has a nuclear warhead and the other side has a kitchen knife, the other side will get a job in one side's kitchen before attacking.

[JolietJake]

Nuclear weapons aren't effective against guerrillas or slaves revolting in your fields and factories unless you're willing to give up those fields and factories for 20-80 years.

If one side has a nuclear warhead and the other side has a kitchen knife, the other side will get a job in one side's kitchen before attacking.
Not all nuclear weapons create huge city destroying explosions. One small strike could take at alot of "guerrillas." Besides that, there are plenty of non nuclear weapons too. Maybe they just drop napalm on everyone.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Strict constructionist? I thought I was reading it as it was written.

I'm not saying it is a good amendment.

If you don't like what it says, have the Congress repeal it and replace it with the language you would prefer.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Not all nuclear weapons create huge city destroying explosions. One small strike could take at alot of "guerrillas." Besides that, there are plenty of non nuclear weapons too. Maybe they just drop napalm on everyone.

In your version of the government enslaving the masses, is the government going to commit genocide against the masses?

Is the government going to wash their own clothes, clean their own toilets, toil in their own crop fields, cook their own meals, change their own kids' shitty diapers, etc?

If so, the government will win be becoming an egalitarian society. :-?

[mykevermin]

Am I a bad conservative if I find the fascination with everyone carrying weapons a categorically terrible idea? I'm not going to fight to get the 2nd amendment repealed or anything, but I wouldn't shed too many tears if it was.

I'd be much happier assuming that the drunk guys camping next to me at a national park weren't packing heat, actually. That would make me feel safer than knowing I could defend myself against a wildlife attack or some sort of government coup.

Turn in your membership card at the door, commie. ;)

I don't see why this is such a problem to gun-rights types. The precedent *has been* that firearms were prohibited from national parks - it only makes sense in the context of safety for those visiting there.

Now, the problem with gun-rights advocates (just in this case) is this knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "WHAT!??!?!", which happens anytime they find out that guns are prohibited from somewhere else. Like people who avoid the doctor because they're not "sick" until they find out, this wasn't a problem until gun-rights folks became aware of it.

Some people here are touting the second amendment as this catch-all, which it simply isn't. You can't carry a gun down the street (exposed), into a courthouse, college campus, capitol buildings in DC, and several others. Why is conceal and carry fine by those whose philosophies are guided by what the constitution literally says? The second amendment says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, so long as it's in my pocket!

That's ultimately the problem that I have with those who carry the second amendment around - they act like this is one step on a slippery slope towards the great "gun grab" that has yet to happen. In reality, it's a discussion on whether or not a location where firearms are currently prohibited should be reexamined to see if firearms should be permitted. You should be more concerned that guns aren't permitted in government buildings - where they'd be infinitely more useful in taking over the government than taking them to Yellowstone.

[trq]

Strict constructionist? I thought I was reading it as it was written.

I'm not saying it is a good amendment.

If you don't like what it says, have the Congress repeal it and replace it with the language you would prefer.

Hrm? Is this in response to anything in specific?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I don't see why this is such a problem to gun-rights types. The precedent *has been* that firearms were prohibited from national parks - it only makes sense in the context of safety for those visiting there.


While it does make sense not to have a bunch of trigger happy campers roving our national parks, how does this park policy predate the Second Amendment?

[mykevermin]

:wall:

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Hrm? Is this in response to anything in specific?

Sure.

"Perhaps because, like the bible, people have difficulty interpreting the Second Amendment in light of technological advances. There simply weren't anti-armor sniper rifles or fully automatic shotguns around for the Founding Fathers to even imagine the ramifications of. So perhaps a strict Constitutional Constructionist could argue that the Founding Fathers originally intended the Second Amendment to allow every citizen to bear as many arms as they'd like ... but those arms would then have to be wheellock pistols and flintlock muskets, the weapons the Founding Fathers had in mind as they were writing the Amendment. Anything else is selective interpretation."

Are you of the opinion that the Founding Fathers view of the Second Amendment is based on a gun's rate of fire and accuracy?

Thomas Jefferson: Well, Franklin, you can have any gun you want so long as it can't be fired more than twice a minute.

James Madison: Fucking A!

[fatherofcaitlyn]

:wall:

My work here is done.

But seriously, the Second Amendment is the first gun law for the United States. It is written in such a way that a literal interpretation means there can be no other gun laws unless they don't infringe on a person's right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying it is well written.

[usickenme]

My work here is done.

But seriously, the Second Amendment is the first gun law for the United States. It is written in such a way that a literal interpretation means there can be no other gun laws unless they don't infringe on a person's right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying it is well written.


But you are saying it is not open to interpretation. Which is incorrect. Hell, even the first admendment has restrictions.

Why is the second admendment (one with a built-in restriction) above reproach? It's not.

I like what Dan Klass (the bitterest pill podcast) said about the subject. He is for free and unfettered access to guns but only gun that were available at the time the constitution was written. You wanna be a strict constructionist? There you go.

[trq]

Are you of the opinion that the Founding Fathers view of the Second Amendment is based on a gun's rate of fire and accuracy?

Thomas Jefferson: Well, Franklin, you can have any gun you want so long as it can't be fired more than twice a minute.

James Madison: Fucking A!

Ah. Then I would say that I'm of the opinion that you can't have it both ways. Either you're a "strict constructionist" and the Second Amendment is written in stone, in which case it means exactly what it meant when it was written -- the "arms" referred to are muskets and black powder weapons -- or you're interpreting the Amendment as a living document, adaptable to the times we live in and the technology available.

Personally, I think that as long as the driving point of the Amendment (people have the right to defend themselves and their property, even from their government) is intact, we're doing okay, but that's at odds with the understanding espoused by the NRA, which combines a "living" interpretation with regard to WHAT you can own with a "constructionist" interpretation with regard to the rest of it. The rule of law is based on consistency, and selectively choosing the bits to take literally and the bits to interpret is, frankly, baloney.

And while we're on the subject of consistency being integral to the rule of law, if you're going to read the Amendment as written, you have to read the whole Amendment, not just the "right to bear arms" part, because it's the "well-regulated militia" bit that puts it in context.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

And while we're on the subject of consistency being integral to the rule of law, if you're going to read the Amendment as written, you have to read the whole Amendment, not just the "right to bear arms" part, because it's the "well-regulated militia" bit that puts it in context.

Can I have any gun I want if I join a militia?

[SpazX]

Can I have any gun I want if I join a militia?

So long as it's well-regulated :-P.

[N1c0_ds]

Hey! At least for you getting a gun is something possible. Here the gun laws are stupid, the registries are overdated (and thus it takes ages to get the paperwork done) and still don't prevent crimes. And this is when you are over 18. The only good reason for a teenager to own a gun, even a bolt-action rifle would be to shoot people in school. Damn you medias!

At least you folks can own a gun without all the hassle we have. Canada's gun laws are a bitch.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The only good reason for a teenager to own a gun, even a bolt-action rifle would be to shoot people in school.



Isn't caribou edible?

Also, what do you Canadians do when the King of England shows up and starts pushing you around, eh?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

So long as it's well-regulated :-P.

:lol:

And what would determine if a militia is well-regulated? Any local, state or federal laws that were passed. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Government Official: You can't have those firearms because nobody in your militia can run a mile in under 3 minutes while carrying a bazooka.

[trq]

Can I have any gun I want if I join a militia?

Basically? Yeah. Just stay away from the "poorly regulated" ones -- everybody's always late, nobody can remember who's supposed to be recording the minutes, and it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a good coordinator for the annual bake-sale & ammo stockpile drive. I do have a swank chrome-plated .38 and more flannel shirts than I know what to do with leftover from mine, though.

[level1online]

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

:D

[pittpizza]

I think the question really boils down to how many lives a nation is willing to give up in order to allow its citizenry to be armed to the teeth. Guns kill so many more people in the US compared to Canada its ridiculous. Thats the detriment.

There are benefits, other nations sure as hell wouldnt want to invade us. And if there was ever a V for Vendetta type government, the oppressed could fight back.

[Magehart]

I am a "gun nut" and am conflicted on allowing guns into national parks.

If we required a proficiency test, say hit 1 foot target at 15 yards 5 out of 5 times, then I say go for it.

Guns don't scare me. Guns in improper hands do.


Anyways for all you anti gun guys and gals in here freedom is a choice NOT a right. You can choose to defend it or you can choose to give it away but nowhere on this earth is it handed to you. So DON'T say we should give up our best bet of upholding our freedom.

[mykevermin]

And if there was ever a V for Vendetta type government, the oppressed could fight back.

Marx was dead wrong about there ever being a collective recognition of exploitation followed by a blody revolution and overthrow of the government and bourgeoisie elite. But it's understandable how he failed to realize this; after all, while he identified one opiate in religion, he wasn't around to see the opiate of beer and American Gladiators.

[Milkyman]

I am a "gun nut" and am conflicted on allowing guns into national parks.

If we required a proficiency test, say hit 1 foot target at 15 yards 5 out of 5 times, then I say go for it.

Guns don't scare me. Guns in improper hands do.


Anyways for all you anti gun guys and gals in here freedom is a choice NOT a right. You can choose to defend it or you can choose to give it away but nowhere on this earth is it handed to you. So DON'T say we should give up our best bet of upholding our freedom.

How about a gun safety test instead? if you just test for accuracy you can still have improper hands on a person who's a really good shot and who can kill you better. Accuracy with a firearm has no bearing on judgment. There are many ways to fight for your freedom and killing your oppressor is merely the simplest way. You can't shoot the NSA guy at AT&T who's reading your email.

[Magehart]

How about a gun safety test instead? if you just test for accuracy you can still have improper hands on a person who's a really good shot and who can kill you better. Accuracy with a firearm has no bearing on judgment. There are many ways to fight for your freedom and killing your oppressor is merely the simplest way. You can't shoot the NSA guy at AT&T who's reading your email.

My point is people who are proficient with guns and train on a regular basis are (more likely) to handle their firearms in a safe manner. Granted there are exceptions like the Columbine case where they trained for the sheer sport of killing but no laws would've stopped them.

Gun safety tests are a joke as well (and this is coming from a kid in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia).

Who said anything about shooting your way to freedom? It's the idea that the citizens are armed. Not the act of armed rebellion. Here's an example... why do criminals commit armed robbery in liquor stores and gas stations more frequently than casinos or banks?

[Ikohn4ever]

My point is people who are proficient with guns and train on a regular basis are (more likely) to handle their firearms in a safe manner. Granted there are exceptions like the Columbine case where they trained for the sheer sport of killing but no laws would've stopped them.




i would really like to know where you pulled that nugget from. We can play the assumption game all you want, but just because you are well versed in shooting does not make you safer. In fact i would imagine most people who own gun would consider themselves a proficient gun owner. See I can assume too.

[Magehart]

i would really like to know where you pulled that nugget from. We can play the assumption game all you want, but just because you are well versed in shooting does not make you safer. In fact i would imagine most people who own gun would consider themselves a proficient gun owner. See I can assume too.

Every shooting range I have ever visited has made every shooter practice proper firearm handling procedures and every "regular" there I would trust completely with my life. It's these little twits who buy a gun to impress their friends that pull off all these stupid stunts and get people killed. Case in point during a line break a guy loads his shotgun and fires it at a clay his friend chucked.

We are the sum of all our experiences. How versed are you in the handling, operation, and shooting of a firearm that you are able to critique them? I myself am an avid shooter, NRA member, and frequent voice in local gun laws (albeit a mute voice since it is California).


Anyways guns are dangerous, yes, I will never argue that. But so are many other tools. Why would you ever need a machete or K-bar in a National Forest when you're not allowed to damage the natural environment. Riddle me that Batman. (Hint: try fighting a bear with a K-bar... then argue self defense with me).

[Milkyman]

Every shooting range I have ever visited has made every shooter practice proper firearm handling procedures and every "regular" there I would trust completely with my life. It's these little twits who buy a gun to impress their friends that pull off all these stupid stunts and get people killed. Case in point during a line break a guy loads his shotgun and fires it at a clay his friend chucked.

We are the sum of all our experiences. How versed are you in the handling, operation, and shooting of a firearm that you are able to critique them? I myself am an avid shooter, NRA member, and frequent voice in local gun laws (albeit a mute voice since it is California).


Anyways guns are dangerous, yes, I will never argue that. But so are many other tools. Why would you ever need a machete or K-bar in a National Forest when you're not allowed to damage the natural environment. Riddle me that Batman. (Hint: try fighting a bear with a K-bar... then argue self defense with me).

As a gun enthusiast would you say that most people who buy guns go to firing ranges? I could see that in densely populated states but not in the midwest but maybe you know better. That's an actual question there I'm not trying to argue with your statement.

I've been to a firing range (in the middle of manhattan can you believe it?) and it seems to me that basic gun safety stuff like engaging safeties, not pointing a loaded gun at anyone, not leaving a loaded gun around, taking out the magazine and clearing the chamber are things that you don't need to be an expert to understand but perhaps could become lax in someone who spends a great deal of time with firearms and who, as you say, are twits. Is there more to these basic things that novices wouldn't know?

I don't really have an issue with people having guns or knives but if I was bringing weapons into a national park it would be to defend against other people not bears.

[daroga]

Guns don't scare me. Guns in improper hands do.I couldn't agree with this more.

The problem is that we can't make people less stupid and incompetent. And the thought of training those devoid of common sense to make them proficient in gun use frightens me.

It's my personal belief that those tested and trained and who handle firearms for a profession should be the ones to have them (military, police, etc.). There certainly could be bad eggs in that bunch too, but it'd be a whole lot safer in my mind than supplying every person in this country with a gun a bit of training on how to use it.

[The Mana Knight]

I'm not going to get too far in this debate, because I have a very strong opinion over this (I've done multiple speeches on gun control). Personally, I feel there are too many guns and gun control laws aren't harsh enough.

I personally feel the 2nd amendment is bogus now and should be removed. At the time it was made, the country had to protect themselves from some soldier from some other country attacking along with having to hunt for food. At the time, guns were difficult to make and weren't as powerful as they can be now (such as those automatic assault guns). If guns were as powerful back then and easy to use (like now), I doubt that would have been an amendment. Part of the reason I have a lot of disliking for the NRA is using the 2nd amendment argument way too much.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

:D

I have to disagree. If group #1 of citizens contends they are a well-regulated militia and group #2 of citizens contends group #1 is not a well-regulated militia, a third party would have to rule as to whether or not group #1 is well-regulated. That third party would have to be the government.

[CannibalCrowley]

I personally feel the 2nd amendment is bogus now and should be removed.

It’s bogus? Is that your legal opinion? Are the other Amendments “bogus” too?

At the time it was made, the country had to protect themselves from some soldier from some other country attacking along with having to hunt for food.

People still have to protect themselves from being attacked by others. Newsflash, the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual. Whether you like it or not, you’re responsible for your own safety.

Also, plenty of people still hunt for their food. For many families hunting is about staying fed, not about sport.

At the time, guns were difficult to make and weren't as powerful as they can be now (such as those automatic assault guns).

What is an “automatic assault gun” and how can I get one legally?

If guns were as powerful back then and easy to use (like now), I doubt that would have been an amendment.

If power was their concern then it would have been mentioned. Besides, they had weapons that were a lot more powerful than the average rifle.

Part of the reason I have a lot of disliking for the NRA is using the 2nd amendment argument way too much.

That’s like saying that you don’t like the ACLU because they use the 1st Amendment argument too much.

[trq]

I have to disagree. If group #1 of citizens contends they are a well-regulated militia and group #2 of citizens contends group #1 is not a well-regulated militia, a third party would have to rule as to whether or not group #1 is well-regulated. That third party would have to be the government.

You're sittin' at my table, chum. Here, have a brownie and an extended mag.

If power was their concern then it would have been mentioned.

Well ... "power" wasn't a concern because they didn't have any inkling that it was even a relevant issue. The firearms they were using had been more or less the same -- needed a powderhorn and all that -- for literally centuries. The big improvement in lethality in their time was simply drilling your troops to reload fast enough that they could fire every twenty seconds instead of every thirty. The Founding Fathers weren't psychic -- they didn't anticipate weapons capable of 600 rounds per minute, yet decide to not mention them because they were making a point.

Besides, they had weapons that were a lot more powerful than the average rifle.

What, you mean like cannon? I'm afraid I don't follow.

[camoor]

No. The government isn't crazier than David Koresh. The government isn't crazier than Tim McVeigh.

I meant crazier in the sense of being obsessed with - as in "that online guy who is crazy about the GOW videogame". The government types always want bigger and badder guns. People join the marines and spec forces partially because they like blowing stuff up.

Perhaps because, like the bible, people have difficulty interpreting the Second Amendment in light of technological advances. There simply weren't anti-armor sniper rifles or fully automatic shotguns around for the Founding Fathers to even imagine the ramifications of. So perhaps a strict Constitutional Constructionist could argue that the Founding Fathers originally intended the Second Amendment to allow every citizen to bear as many arms as they'd like ... but those arms would then have to be wheellock pistols and flintlock muskets, the weapons the Founding Fathers had in mind as they were writing the Amendment. Anything else is selective interpretation.

That's like saying the first amendment should only apply to religions that existed at the time of the founding fathers, that they never invisioned dangerous religions or religions that advocated illegal activities such as the Rastafarians, and that these religions therefore have no right to exist.

[CannibalCrowley]

Well ... "power" wasn't a concern because they didn't have any inkling that it was even a relevant issue. The firearms they were using had been more or less the same -- needed a powderhorn and all that -- for literally centuries. The big improvement in lethality in their time was simply drilling your troops to reload fast enough that they could fire every twenty seconds instead of every thirty. The Founding Fathers weren't psychic -- they didn't anticipate weapons capable of 600 rounds per minute, yet decide to not mention them because they were making a point.

By that reasoning, only items which existed at the time of writing are covered under the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

What, you mean like cannon? I'm afraid I don't follow.

Yes, that would be one item.

[usickenme]

That's pretty much the worst analogy I've ever seen. While "new" religions have come up they aren't really all that different in function from any religion at that time. FYI- no religion can back illegal activities without raising the suspection from the authorities.

for fuck's sake, the technology you are using is a better example of something the founders couldn't have envisioned.

By that reasoning, only items which existed at the time of writing are covered under the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.


The point of this rabbit hole is really the question of if you are a "strict constructionist" or do you allow interpretations of the constitution. You can't have it both ways.

[trq]

I meant crazier in the sense of being obsessed with - as in "that online guy who is crazy about the GOW videogame". The government types always want bigger and badder guns. People join the marines and spec forces partially because they like blowing stuff up.

Fair enough.

The point of this rabbit hole is really the question of if you are a "strict constructionist" or do you allow interpretations of the constitution. You can't have it both ways.

"Rabbit hole." That's a good way of putting it. I'm gonna steal that next time I'm trying to make this point.

[The Mana Knight]

It’s bogus? Is that your legal opinion? Are the other Amendments “bogus” too? I'm only calling the 2nd amendment bogus.

People still have to protect themselves from being attacked by others. Newsflash, the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual. Whether you like it or not, you’re responsible for your own safety.But would there be attacks if there were more strict gun laws keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

What is an “automatic assault gun” and how can I get one legally?If some criminals are getting them easily, there has to be a problem.

If power was their concern then it would have been mentioned. Besides, they had weapons that were a lot more powerful than the average rifle.Guns back then couldn't shoot 600 times in one minute or something. The only thing really powerful were cannons, yet many didn't own them. Guns now these days take very little effort to fire them, compared to the past.

That’s like saying that you don’t like the ACLU because they use the 1st Amendment argument too much.The ACLU doesn't get on my nerves like the NRA, because they definitely try to abuse the 2nd amendment like nothing other.



Well ... "power" wasn't a concern because they didn't have any inkling that it was even a relevant issue. The firearms they were using had been more or less the same -- needed a powderhorn and all that -- for literally centuries. The big improvement in lethality in their time was simply drilling your troops to reload fast enough that they could fire every twenty seconds instead of every thirty. The Founding Fathers weren't psychic -- they didn't anticipate weapons capable of 600 rounds per minute, yet decide to not mention them because they were making a point.Basically what I was thinking. There wasn't a variety in guns and they just weren't anywhere near as powerful.

[Fanboy]

Also, what do you Canadians do when the King of England shows up and starts pushing you around, eh?

Well, seeing as he would be our head of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_canada#Head_of_State) we'd probably say "Yes, Your Majesty. Most excellent pushing, Your Majesty."

Just a bunch of fun-lovin', gun-fearin' monarchists, we are. :D

[GuilewasNK]

Might I inject some levity?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xv-2XYOtgCg

[Ikohn4ever]

we have limits to free speech, i dont see anyone bitching about that. I mean saying fire in a crowded theater is a limit on free speech. It doesnt say anything about that in the first Amendment or that High Schoolers don't have free speech in school. There are many limits to free speech and most people accept them because they are reasonable to some extent. But gunnies are so insecure they act like we are trying to take away their penile compensation if we want smart guns or god forbid keep a national park gun free.

[camoor]

That's pretty much the worst analogy I've ever seen. While "new" religions have come up they aren't really all that different in function from any religion at that time. FYI- no religion can back illegal activities without raising the suspection from the authorities.

for fuck's sake, the technology you are using is a better example of something the founders couldn't have envisioned.

Not really. Religions are vastly diff in function (some have prayer service, some have manditory charity work, some have meditation, some have fire dances...) and purpose (some have aims to get you in heaven, others have aims to make you one with nature, etc etc)

You want to take one amendment and Amish it - but then let all of the others evolve with society and technology.

A gun is a gun. A gun could kill someone back in 1777 same as it can in 2007. Founders knew what they were doing (in the late 18th century any rational individual could see that weaponry would evolve and become more deadly - just as it had for centuries) and the ability to modify the constitution is always there if you want to lead the charge on creating another amendment nullifing the second one.

[CannibalCrowley]

It’s bogus? Is that your legal opinion? Are the other Amendments “bogus” too?
I'm only calling the 2nd amendment bogus.
Why only the 2nd? What logically differentiates the 2nd Amendment from the other 9 which were written at the same time?

People still have to protect themselves from being attacked by others. Newsflash, the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual. Whether you like it or not, you’re responsible for your own safety.
But would there be attacks if there were more strict gun laws keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
A – You’re working on the false assumption that more gun laws would equal fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Felons are already prohibited by law from purchasing or even possessing a firearm; how would a law prohibiting a cosmetic feature go further in keeping the felon from acquiring a firearm?
B – Gun laws affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
C – A criminal is going to attack people whether he has a firearm or not. He often doesn’t need the force multiplier anyway. However; the majority of law-abiding citizens would (and have) benefit greatly by using a firearm as an equalizer against an assailant.

What is an “automatic assault gun” and how can I get one legally?
If some criminals are getting them easily, there has to be a problem.
I’m still waiting for you to tell me what an “automatic assault gun” is.
As for criminals being able to get them easily through illegal means, that’s a problem with current laws not being enforced as well as the simple fact that prohibition doesn’t work.

That’s like saying that you don’t like the ACLU because they use the 1st Amendment argument too much.
The ACLU doesn't get on my nerves like the NRA, because they definitely try to abuse the 2nd amendment like nothing other.
The ACLU “abuses” the 1st Amendment as much as the NRA “abuses” the 2nd. Unless, that is, you believe that organizations such as NAMBLA should be allowed to thrive and continue to encourage their members to commit illegal acts.

Basically what I was thinking. There wasn't a variety in guns and they just weren't anywhere near as powerful.

There are a variety of tools concerning free speech which weren’t anywhere near as powerful as there were at the time that the 1st Amendment was written. Is your double standard based on logic and legal precedent or on emotion?

we have limits to free speech, i dont see anyone bitching about that.

The current federal limits on free speech all concern one’s speech doing harm to another. Free speech that doesn’t harm another is not limited by the federal government in any way.

I mean saying fire in a crowded theater is a limit on free speech.
You can say fire in a theater all you want as long as the theater is on fire. Of course you’ll suffer consequences if you do so falsely; but that’s because falsely claiming fire in a theater would likely result in harm coming to someone as a result.

It doesnt say anything about that in the first Amendment or that High Schoolers don't have free speech in school.
Students have free speech in school. Examples:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=19101
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12812prs20020515.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/27414prs20061116.html

There are many limits to free speech and most people accept them because they are reasonable to some extent. But gunnies are so insecure they act like we are trying to take away their penile compensation if we want smart guns or god forbid keep a national park gun free.
If you want a “smart gun” then by all means get one. As far as I know, there’s no law against owning one. I’d suggest that you get a backup though because they have so many issues that you’ll probably need it. There are plenty of good reasons why police agencies haven’t adopted so-called “smart guns.”

As for national parks, how are you harmed if a law-abiding citizen lawfully carried a firearm into a national park?

[mykevermin]

As for national parks, how are you harmed if a law-abiding citizen lawfully carried a firearm into a national park?

Simply put, when you look at where accidetal firearms deaths occur each year, they occur where people are allowed to display and use them - shooting ranges, the home, police stations, and automobiles (not necessarily a "use" place, but even where firearms are prohibited, such as college campuses, they are permitted to be stored in the car). So, when you open up another location for firearm carry and use, there should be alongside it an explicit understanding that there *will* be an increase in accidental firearms-related deaths as a result. Likewise, with the naive "more guns in people's hands will prevent another Virginia Tech/NIU" argument, if you extend conceal and carry permits to college campuses, you have to be able to effectively demonstrate that the resulting increase in firearms-related deaths on campus will be fewer than the lives saved by "preventing another shooting." Otherwise the net effect of allowing more guns to be carried by "law abiding civilians" in more places means *more* deaths than otherwise.

Also, cut the shit out with the "us" and "criminals" dichotomy. Life ain't a Cassavettes flick, and crimes are committed all the time with people who buy their weapons quite legally (both aforementioned school shootings, for example), and plenty of otherwise law-abiding citizens acquire their guns illegally, and never use it for criminal purposes - so your false compartmentalization of people into this "either/or" is a red herring, and irrelevant posturing.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The argument that the Founders couldn't envision arms as potent as today's isn't persuasive because they couldn't envision other advances such as medicine.

Even comparatively minor gunshot wounds 100-200 years ago had a good chance of killing someone weeks later through infection that couldn't be treated.

[Xevious]

:shock:


Yeah...that was a serious Typo. I have to admit that it was pretty funny though.

If you read the rest of the text, you would figure out that I was referring to my ex-con neighbor.

[trq]

You want to take one amendment and Amish it - but then let all of the others evolve with society and technology.

See, we're all talking in circles here, because this is exactly what usickenme and I have been saying*. The "pro-gun" argument supposedly comes from a "strict constructionist" interpretation. "The Second Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to own and bear any weapon in whatever quantity they wish" the argument goes. Well, no. That's an INTERPRETATION, unless you're literally suggesting Alexander Hamilton and his pals foresaw everything from the Sig-226 to the Steyr Aug to the .50 cal to the Calico to the Desert Eagle, ad infinitum. So if the Second Amendment is open to interpretation -- and again, unless you believe the above, or are going to limit yourself to the firearms available when the Amendment was written -- then we can view the Amendment in light of a changing society, and restricting increasingly lethal guns is a very valid option in said society. So once more, with feeling: you can't have it both ways, which is a point you seem to agree with.

* U, feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting you.

A gun is a gun. A gun could kill someone back in 1777 same as it can in 2007.

That's really not true. If it were, we'd still be fighting our wars with muskets.

(in the late 18th century any rational individual could see that weaponry would evolve and become more deadly - just as it had for centuries)

Also not true. The firearms available in 1777 were much closer to the firearms Columbus had when he discovered the New World -- three hundred years earlier -- than the repeating rifles that would practically wipe out the Indians only seventy years later, or the machine guns that would change the face of warfare forever only seventy years after that. So yes, of course guns -- like all technology -- would improve. But it's one thing to expect gradual improvements, and another to expect a total revolution. An M-60 isn't just "a smidge better" than an arquebus.

Yes, that would be one item.

Okay... I really still feel like I don't see your point. Cannons are more lethal, by whatever measure you're using, than period firearms. They're also not covered by the Second Amendment. If anything, I'd say that makes the point that the Founding Fathers DID have it in mind to limit the destructive capacity of the weapons available to the average citizen; there's no "right to bear arms, and maybe artillery if you can afford it."

Hell, let's cut to the chase: "arms" are just weapons. They aren't even necessarily firearms at all. If we're going to ignore historical context, why do we assume that the Second Amendment isn't about swords and knives (still very practical options for defense at the time) and yet mostly admit that granting everyone permission to own wire-guided missiles and flamethrowers would be a bad idea? If we're going to interpret the Second Amendment to allow weapons beyond the literal, why limit the weapons available at all?

[trq]

The argument that the Founders couldn't envision arms as potent as today's isn't persuasive because they couldn't envision other advances such as medicine.

Even comparatively minor gunshot wounds 100-200 years ago had a good chance of killing someone weeks later through infection that couldn't be treated.

As did being stabbed by a rapier -- puncture wounds were notorious for going septic and killing slowly and painfully. So again: why isn't the Second Amendment about swords?

[usickenme]

The argument that the Founders couldn't envision arms as potent as today's isn't persuasive because they couldn't envision other advances such as medicine.
.


humm, exactly how many constitutional amendments deal with medicine directly?

[mykevermin]

I recall reading something about a "well-regulated enema."

But was it in the constitution, or an old issue of Swank? I get 'em all confused when they're stuffed in my magazine pile by the toilet, you know.

[camoor]

Yeah...that was a serious Typo. I have to admit that it was pretty funny though.

If you read the rest of the text, you would figure out that I was referring to my ex-con neighbor.

Totally. I hope you understand I still had to point it out (all in good fun) :lol:

[camoor]

That's really not true. If it were, we'd still be fighting our wars with muskets.

Muskets kill people. I stand by my statement

Also not true. The firearms available in 1777 were much closer to the firearms Columbus had when he discovered the New World -- three hundred years earlier -- than the repeating rifles that would practically wipe out the Indians only seventy years later, or the machine guns that would change the face of warfare forever only seventy years after that. So yes, of course guns -- like all technology -- would improve. But it's one thing to expect gradual improvements, and another to expect a total revolution. An M-60 isn't just "a smidge better" than an arquebus.

The founding fathers were learned men. They would have known the military history from the period of Ancient Greece through their time. They would have known how weapons - especially guns - naturally evolve. There's no comparison between a group of 15th century infantry armed with matchlock muskets and a well organized militia of the late 18th century - they knew this!

You're trying to paint the founding fathers as babes in the woods who could never imagine a gun capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time - it's downright insulting to insinuate that a gentleman scholar such as the inventive Ben Franklin or the brilliant military leader George Washington couldn't have foreseen that guns would one day be more accurate, more powerful, and more effective then they were in the late 18th century.

If you disagree with their opinion about the people's right to bear arms, please, by all means, attempt to add an amendment to the Constitution.

[usickenme]

quit being intentionally obtuse by pretending that all guns are the same or that the second amendment is not open to interpretation. Talk about insulting. The founding father may have had enough foresight to forsee AK-47 and tactical nukes as you claim, but they certainly didn't have enough foresight to word the amendment clearly enough to avoid multiple interpretations.

[mykevermin]

You're trying to paint the founding fathers as babes in the woods who could never imagine a gun capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time - it's downright insulting to insinuate that a gentleman scholar such as the inventive Ben Franklin or the brilliant military leader George Washington couldn't have foreseen that guns would one day be more accurate, more powerful, and more effective then they were in the late 18th century.

Actually, I believe his point is that by making the claim you have above, or making the counter-claim that they were unable to envision what arms would look like 200 years from now, that in either case the person making the argument is absolutely imposing a particular interpretation on the text of the second amendment (thusly, those people who falsely claim to "literal interpretations" or "strict constructionalist/constitutionalist" arguments can suck a big fat egg, 'cuz they're lying).

Well, let me set you up, then. Tell us: what will "arms" be in the year 2240? (and, more importantly, will we finally have space cars that fold up into briefcases that can be carried into our office at Spaceley Sprockets?)

[camoor]

Well, let me set you up, then. Tell us: what will "arms" be in the year 2240? (and, more importantly, will we finally have space cars that fold up into briefcases that can be carried into our office at Spaceley Sprockets?)

Governments around the world are rushing to develop military robots capable of killing autonomously without considering the legal and moral implications, warns a leading roboticist. But another robotics expert argues that robotic soldiers could perhaps be made more ethical than human ones.

Noel Sharkey of Sheffield University, UK, says he became "really scared" after researching plans outlined by the US and other nations to roboticise their military forces. He will outline his concerns to at a one day conference held in London, UK, on Wednesday.
Over 4000 semi-autonomous robots are already deployed by the US in Iraq, says Sharkey, and other countries – including several European nations, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Singapore and Israel – are developing similar technologies.

...
Sharkey is most concerned about the prospect of having robots decide for themselves when to "pull the trigger". Currently, a human is always involved in decisions of this nature. But the Pentagon is nearly 2 years into a research programme aimed at having robots identify potential threats without human help.

"The main problem is that these systems do not have the discriminative power to do that," he says, "and I don't know if they ever will."
...
"One of the fundamental abilities I want to give [these systems] is to refuse an order and explain why."
Yet Arkin does not think battlefield robots can be made a smart as human soldiers. "We cannot make them that generally intelligent, they will be more like dogs, used for specialised situations," he says
But he is so far concentrating his research scenarios involving armies. "For those situations we have very clear cut guidance from the Geneva Convention, the Hague and elsewhere about what is ethical," he explains.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4354764&page=1


Oh yeah, this seems like a really good time to give up the people's right to bear arms.

http://www.britfilms.tv/images/news/Terminators.jpg

[mykevermin]

It'll be the same, man - poor robots go to the front lines, while senators' robots go to prep school.

[camoor]

It'll be the same, man - poor robots go to the front lines, while senators' robots go to prep school.

:lol:

You could write for Futurama

[MarkMark]

It the right to bear arms is taken away from the lawful then only outlaws will have guns. Period. There is no way around it. Many claim Britain as a great example of a gunless nation having less shootings. What they will fail to mention is that the amount of stabbing crimes more than makes up for it.

[trq]

You're trying to paint the founding fathers as babes in the woods who could never imagine a gun capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time - it's downright insulting to insinuate that a gentleman scholar such as the inventive Ben Franklin or the brilliant military leader George Washington couldn't have foreseen that guns would one day be more accurate, more powerful, and more effective then they were in the late 18th century.

Well, sirrah, since I've offended the honour of your esteemed colleagues, I'm certain that a man of stature such as yourself would demand satisfaction, and it would be cowardly for me to wilt in the face of such terrible determination, so I must accept. As the challenged, I claim my right to choose the manner in which we settle this dispute, and so when we meet upon the morrow, you shall use the finest dueling pistol available, the very historical artefact with which Aaron Burr slew Alexander Hamilton. Of course, being the offending party in this matter, it is only fitting that I use a commoner's weapon, such as, perhaps, a Glock-17 with a laser sight and an extended 33-round mag, modified for burst fire and loaded with hollow points. Ten paces, turn, and fire, was it?

I'm sure God will judge the rightness of our causes by leading his favoured to victory.

Your humble servant,
TRQ

;)

[GuilewasNK]

Well, sirrah, since I've offended the honour of your esteemed colleagues, I'm certain that a man of stature such as yourself would demand satisfaction, and it would be cowardly for me to wilt in the face of such terrible determination, so I must accept. As the challenged, I claim my right to choose the manner in which we settle this dispute, and so when we meet upon the morrow, you shall use the finest dueling pistol available, the very historical artefact with which Aaron Burr slew Alexander Hamilton. Of course, being the offending party in this matter, it is only fitting that I use a commoner's weapon, such as, perhaps, a Glock-17 with a laser sight and an extended 33-round mag, modified for burst fire and loaded with hollow points. Ten paces, turn, and fire, was it?

I'm sure God will judge the rightness of our causes by leading his favoured to victory.

Your humble servant,
TRQ

;)


:rofl:

[Hex]

trq, you made my day. That was fantastic.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

As did being stabbed by a rapier -- puncture wounds were notorious for going septic and killing slowly and painfully. So again: why isn't the Second Amendment about swords?

Is it illegal for a member of a well-regulated militia to keep or bear any type of melee weapon?

[mykevermin]

It the right to bear arms is taken away from the lawful then only outlaws will have guns. Period. There is no way around it. Many claim Britain as a great example of a gunless nation having less shootings. What they will fail to mention is that the amount of stabbing crimes more than makes up for it.

Indeed. There's nothing like citing how the British commit crimes with knives to demonstrate the "only outlaws will have guns" argument.

[camoor]

Well, sirrah, since I've offended the honour of your esteemed colleagues, I'm certain that a man of stature such as yourself would demand satisfaction, and it would be cowardly for me to wilt in the face of such terrible determination, so I must accept. As the challenged, I claim my right to choose the manner in which we settle this dispute, and so when we meet upon the morrow, you shall use the finest dueling pistol available, the very historical artefact with which Aaron Burr slew Alexander Hamilton. Of course, being the offending party in this matter, it is only fitting that I use a commoner's weapon, such as, perhaps, a Glock-17 with a laser sight and an extended 33-round mag, modified for burst fire and loaded with hollow points. Ten paces, turn, and fire, was it?

I'm sure God will judge the rightness of our causes by leading his favoured to victory.

Your humble servant,
TRQ

;)

ohhhhhh. Why did I have to provoke a guy that says "sirrah" :D

[daroga]

Indeed. There's nothing like citing how the British commit crimes with knives to demonstrate the "only outlaws will have guns" argument.Forschner and Wüsthof are lobbying hard for the 2nd amendment to be repealed.

[mykevermin]

:rofl:

Recent news has shown that "CutCo" is part of a lobbying firm trying to enact stricter gun laws.

[daroga]

:rofl:

Recent news has shown that "CutCo" is part of a lobbying firm trying to enact stricter gun laws.Man, just think how history could've been different and CutCo had enacted their original plan to really make use of the 2nd amendment and have college kids sell restaurant-quality handguns door to door!

[mykevermin]

*rimshot*

You're on today, funnyman.

"Now look at the way this Mack-10 really trims the fat on this beef without changing the direction of the grain or color. MARVELOUS!"

[daroga]

*rimshot*

You're on today, funnyman.I blame the stomach flu :P

[benjamouth]

It the right to bear arms is taken away from the lawful then only outlaws will have guns. Period. There is no way around it. Many claim Britain as a great example of a gunless nation having less shootings. What they will fail to mention is that the amount of stabbing crimes more than makes up for it.

We get plenty of shootings in Blighty these days as well, 14 year old kid got shot in Liverpool the other day.

No High School massacres though, as of yet, Dunblane was about as close as we've got and that did lead to UK gun law being tightened.

[GuilewasNK]

trq, you made my day. That was fantastic.


Agreed. :applause:

[thrustbucket]

I love gun discussions. Very entertaining. For me, the gun argument is summed up easily like this: In a world full of crazy people with weapons, does it make more sense to be with a weapon or without?

I'd love for someone to make a FPS where the player only gets to use statistics, anecdotes, and philosophy about guns against the enemies coming at you.

All I know is gun collectors like me can rejoice whenever a democrat gets elected, because the value of our guns skyrockets. Shit, I've noticed the prices of guns going up the better Democrats do in the elections.

A gun is one of the only things you can buy brand new and be pretty guaranteed (because of the current course of American politics) that it will go up in value. They are a much better investement than U.S. Currency, anyway.

[DesertEagleXIX]

n 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:


List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

[daroga]

I love gun discussions. Very entertaining. For me, the gun argument is summed up easily like this: In a world full of crazy people with weapons, does it make more sense to be with a weapon or without?My point is to not make it possible for the crazies (or more to the point, idiots) to get the guns. Yes, there will always be smuggling of weapons whether only certain classes are illegal or they're all illegal. It's the moron who keeps a loaded rifle in the house where there are young children or the person who can't control his temper and reached for the weapon stash that I want to keep guns away from. It's not logical to say we'll ban all guns all the time and have that be effective.

Michael Knight never once used a gun after getting shot in the face! The real solution here is that we all need sentient, computer controlled mid-80's Trans-Ams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KITT) (or '08 Mustangs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KITT#2008_Knight_Rider_revision), I suppose). If that's not a solid argument, I don't know what is.

[camoor]

n 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:


List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

Excellent post - thanks for doing all of this research. I knew the proof was out there but couldn't find it. I used to be a lukewarm gun control advocate until I started looking at real statistics and listening to arguements from rational pro-gun-rights advocates (IMO the gun nuts give the cause a bad name)

[MarkMark]

Excellent post - thanks for doing all of this research. I knew the proof was out there but couldn't find it. I used to be a lukewarm gun control advocate until I started looking at real statistics and listening to arguements from rational pro-gun-rights advocates (IMO the gun nuts give the cause a bad name)

Agreed very good an d detailed post. Im sure people with opposing views will be hard pressed to post anything even half as convincing. I cannot recal which but a japanese general during WW2 told his superiors that any thoughts of invading the united states would be suicide because there would be an american with a gun behind every bush. Hard to invade a country where its people are free to defend themselves if they so choose to. Pushing for stricter laws and standards is fine. (I personally dont want psychos to get them myself) but saying that we should just give up the right to bear arms completely is foolish at the very least.

[Magehart]

Is it illegal for a member of a well-regulated militia to keep or bear any type of melee weapon?

In California it is illegal to possess many melee weapons. Even leaded boxing gloves are illegal here.

[thrustbucket]

In California it is illegal to possess many melee weapons. Even leaded boxing gloves are illegal here.

Guess if China invades, California will be a shitty first line of defense. ;)

[mykevermin]

but saying that we should just give up the right to bear arms completely is foolish at the very least.

Who the hell is saying that? Nobody here, pal.

[Puzznic]

As far as banning guns in certain places such as national parks.....

If your going to ban guns somewhere there should be metal detectors, an armed security presense, and a legitimate reason for the banning. Otherwise, people should be able to carry.

I am ok with not being able to bring a gun into a courthouse/govenrment buildings given the above criteria. I am not ok with banning guns in colleges or national parks.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

In California it is illegal to possess many melee weapons. Even leaded boxing gloves are illegal here.

If the person claims to be part a well-regulated militia and the government cannot disprove it, the law is unconstitutional.

[camoor]

The DC handgun Supreme Court case should set policy straight on this issue.

Gun control advocates - you're in good company. None other then Bush W. and Cheney have come around to your position.

The Bush administration's shifting stance on gun control has added political drama to the case. Ashcroft's position seven years ago made him a hero to the 4 million-member NRA, which put him on the cover of its monthly magazine and called him a "breath of fresh air to freedom-loving gun owners."
The next year, in 2002, Justice Department lawyers said that any government regulation of gun rights should be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, which would make it harder to enact gun laws.
Now, the Bush administration is siding with Heller in a"friend of the court" brief — but with a large caveat. Justice Department lawyers have backed off their earlier position and now say gun regulation should be subjected to a lesser level of scrutiny that would allow far more regulation than the 2002 stance.
The reason is explained in the first line of the administration's court brief: "Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms." Current laws ban private ownership of machine guns and limit possession of firearms that can go undetected by metal detectors or X-ray machines. Laws also regulate the manufacture, sale and importation of firearms.
Vice President Cheney, a hunting enthusiast, broke with the administration and signed a brief with a majority of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives urging a high threshold for gun regulation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm

Never, ever thought I'd say this - but Ashcroft wasn't half as bad as I thought.

[mykevermin]

n 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:


List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

This is too C&P for my liking, and I'm not convinced by the numbers. I'm going to pull a "source please" card here.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/05/wc05_card_gallery__277x400.jpg

Also, the issue here is about national parks, and not whether or not we should have guns at all. I'm happy to debate the merits of gun control, but the moment it turns into this fantasy world where anyone who thinks firearms should be regulated in the slightest speaks up, the response turns into a "end-all" sort of "here's what happens when there are no guns" argument - which isn't really the issue at all, as I see it.

[thrustbucket]

This is too C&P for my liking, and I'm not convinced by the numbers. I'm going to pull a "source please" card here.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/05/wc05_card_gallery__277x400.jpg

Also, the issue here is about national parks, and not whether or not we should have guns at all. I'm happy to debate the merits of gun control, but the moment it turns into this fantasy world where anyone who thinks firearms should be regulated in the slightest speaks up, the response turns into a "end-all" sort of "here's what happens when there are no guns" argument - which isn't really the issue at all, as I see it.

It may be that this is one issue that we might agree on. Depending on how much control you believe in...

Of course there should be some regulation, but any regulation that is easily bypassed by criminals is really not effective regulation. Most of the proposed gun control laws that I have seen only punish law abiding people. Criminals, who are planning to break the law anyway, have no use for gun control policies and laws.

For example: I have seen some gas stations, stores, restaurants actually have signs posted on the door that says "No guns allowed". Now come on, where is the logic in the store owner in doing that? They may as well have a sign that says "Bad guys with well hidden guns only".

I believe in the concealed carry background checks. I like the background checks for purchasing a gun. And I am totally on board with anyone with a criminal record being banned from gun ownership. In fact, it should be a very serious felony if a felon ever has a gun.

[sweeetja713]

I know in my state (IL) that to get a FOID card you can't have been in a mental hospital/ward/wing/floor for at least five years. Seems like a long time but as we saw, there can be people that are out for years and stop taking their medicine and a school shooting happens.

[trq]

Agreed. :applause:

Thank you, thank you -- it's all in good fun.

[MarkMark]

Who the hell is saying that? Nobody here, pal.

Its a statement. Relax buddy you'll live longer.
(and we both know there are people out there who are hardcore - no one should have guns but the army)

[camoor]

Guess if China invades, California will be a shitty first line of defense. ;)

Doesn't matter, by that time global warming will have put Cali under water anyway. Time to start buying oceanfront property in Nevada!

[mykevermin]

It may be that this is one issue that we might agree on. Depending on how much control you believe in...

Of course there should be some regulation, but any regulation that is easily bypassed by criminals is really not effective regulation. Most of the proposed gun control laws that I have seen only punish law abiding people. Criminals, who are planning to break the law anyway, have no use for gun control policies and laws.

For example: I have seen some gas stations, stores, restaurants actually have signs posted on the door that says "No guns allowed". Now come on, where is the logic in the store owner in doing that? They may as well have a sign that says "Bad guys with well hidden guns only".

I believe in the concealed carry background checks. I like the background checks for purchasing a gun. And I am totally on board with anyone with a criminal record being banned from gun ownership. In fact, it should be a very serious felony if a felon ever has a gun.

What is your opinion on the Brady Bill?

As far as the gun/criminal connection, I'll repeat what I said earlier: there are crimes committed every day where legally purchased firearms are used, and there are otherwise law-abiding citizens who never commit any other crimes who have purchased guns illegally.

Let's be honest: you probably know someone who owns a gun that isn't properly registered that should be, or was acquired via "nontraditional" means. Gun shows aren't always on the "up and up" themselves. You don't have to admit it to me or anyone here - but just think about what firearms (or ammunition) you and your friends and family have that wasn't legally bought.

Now, don't get me wrong - I think there is a modicum of reality to the "only outlaws will have guns" argument. But giving that argument credence goes back to what I said earlier: it acknowledges an absurd absolutist scenario wherein Americans forfeit their right to any and every firearm. Maybe it isn't absurd (given what we know of Stanley Milgram's research, and even a recent repeat study that demonstrated people are mostly the same some 4 decades later), though.

Its a statement. Relax buddy you'll live longer.
(and we both know there are people out there who are hardcore - no one should have guns but the army)

And they aren't here, and they aren't making any points. So you're welcome to offer your opinions and debate, but I think you should really read the thread, find things you agree with and disagree with, and work with what folks here are *actually* saying, rather than echoing some silly point that (1) nobody here is saying and (2) you don't know how small a portion of the population agrees with that.

[Magehart]

What is your opinion on the Brady Bill?

As far as the gun/criminal connection, I'll repeat what I said earlier: there are crimes committed every day where legally purchased firearms are used, and there are otherwise law-abiding citizens who never commit any other crimes who have purchased guns illegally.

I know several citizens in California who buy guns illegally for sporting purposes here in California. These guys make on the upper half of 6 figures a year and have no prior record. They just go to Arizona where there is no waiting period and buy it there then truck it into Cali. The purchasing of the firearm is legal but the importation isn't.

Let's be honest: you probably know someone who owns a gun that isn't properly registered that should be, or was acquired via "nontraditional" means. Gun shows aren't always on the "up and up" themselves.

I have guns that I have acquired throughout the years that aren't registered that are still 100% legal. The laws aren't the problem it's the loopholes within the laws that are. One example is they go through all the details of fingerprinting guns here in California and with a $150 barrel swap I could waste all that work they put into testing them. Another one is you can purchase a black powder rifle or revolver (no wait or registration) and then convert it to a real caliber like .223 or .44 magnum with little effort. All the parts are sold on the internet just drop them in and rock n' roll.

You don't have to admit it to me or anyone here - but just think about what firearms (or ammunition) you and your friends and family have that wasn't legally bought.

I'm questioning this. What do you mean by ammunition not bought legally? Tracer rounds are banned in some states and AP are federally. But to answer your question I've know people with AP rounds. But the majority of the people with these rounds have bought them at a time when they were legal to purchase (but not illegal to possess).


Now, don't get me wrong - I think there is a modicum of reality to the "only outlaws will have guns" argument. But giving that argument credence goes back to what I said earlier: it acknowledges an absurd absolutist scenario wherein Americans forfeit their right to any and every firearm. Maybe it isn't absurd (given what we know of Stanley Milgram's research, and even a recent repeat study that demonstrated people are mostly the same some 4 decades later), though.

I think we need to cut the state by state basis of gun laws and just take it all Federal so we can finally end all these debates once and for all. It's an endless two step. While I don't think we need full-auto at least the feds will let you with the right permits which I think is fine (except in California... everything is banned that can kill someone). California is too stringent on their laws and it's been tying up court costs and time with wasted lawsuits for the past decade. I've had friends guns confiscated by the police and the DA dismissing their cases because the officers don't even know all the laws anymore. Just make a federal list of whats good and whats bad and call it a day.


And they aren't here, and they aren't making any points. So you're welcome to offer your opinions and debate, but I think you should really read the thread, find things you agree with and disagree with, and work with what folks here are *actually* saying, rather than echoing some silly point that (1) nobody here is saying and (2) you don't know how small a portion of the population agrees with that.

I'll just round this off with this: Guns aren't dangerous inherently. The North Hollywood Shootout boys had full body armor, fully auto AK-47's, and the dreaded "high capacity" magazines. Equipped with the best of the best for full assault. They're K:D ratio was abysmal. It was 0. In a Halo or CoD game they would be ridiculed till the end of time. The point is guns aren't dangerous. It's a gun in the hands of a skillful person that makes ANYTHING dangerous. give The Rock a bigass piece of lumber and give a 4th grader an Uzi and see who would win.

Fun fact: The high cap mags and the AK's are illegal in Cali then and now.
One more: Last year when the LA confiscated weaponry from gang members guess how many shoulder fired rockets they found? If you said zero you're in for a surprise.

Lawmakers need to stop harassing law abiding citizens and start making tougher laws on crime and hiring more police to kick some ass.

Invent Robocop damnit!

[The Crotch]

Having untrained people handle firearms isn't dangerous?

[MarkMark]

What is your opinion on the Brady Bill?

As far as the gun/criminal connection, I'll repeat what I said earlier: there are crimes committed every day where legally purchased firearms are used, and there are otherwise law-abiding citizens who never commit any other crimes who have purchased guns illegally.

Let's be honest: you probably know someone who owns a gun that isn't properly registered that should be, or was acquired via "nontraditional" means. Gun shows aren't always on the "up and up" themselves. You don't have to admit it to me or anyone here - but just think about what firearms (or ammunition) you and your friends and family have that wasn't legally bought.

Now, don't get me wrong - I think there is a modicum of reality to the "only outlaws will have guns" argument. But giving that argument credence goes back to what I said earlier: it acknowledges an absurd absolutist scenario wherein Americans forfeit their right to any and every firearm. Maybe it isn't absurd (given what we know of Stanley Milgram's research, and even a recent repeat study that demonstrated people are mostly the same some 4 decades later), though.



And they aren't here, and they aren't making any points. So you're welcome to offer your opinions and debate, but I think you should really read the thread, find things you agree with and disagree with, and work with what folks here are *actually* saying, rather than echoing some silly point that (1) nobody here is saying and (2) you don't know how small a portion of the population agrees with that.

Good sir, you don't understand, I am. The thread is about gun control. My opinion is that stricter enforcement is ok(we cant be allowed to just walk anywhere with a gun) but taking away all gun rights is foolish. Whats wrong with heading any extremeists off beforehand? I think the with the vast population on the internet and a decent registered members population on CAG gives a decent change of there being a handful of people that fall into that category. Surely we can agree at the very least on that.

[camoor]

Lawmakers need to stop harassing law abiding citizens and start making tougher laws on crime and hiring more police to kick some ass.

Invent Robocop damnit!

Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/robocop/robo_dickjones.jpg

[thrustbucket]

What is your opinion on the Brady Bill?


In a nutshell, I think the Brady Bill hasn't been that useful when it comes to stopping outright violent crime with guns. However, the aspects of it for gun tracing is very useful. I do think background checks are a good idea, but the waiting period aspect seems noneffective.

[MarkMark]

Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/robocop/robo_dickjones.jpg

:D

[usickenme]

I do think background checks are a good idea, but the waiting period aspect seems noneffective.

It's kind of hard to assess the effectiveness of the waiting period would you agree? I mean, it works when nothing unusual happens.

[thrustbucket]

It's kind of hard to assess the effectiveness of the waiting period would you agree? I mean, it works when nothing unusual happens.

Yes this is true, which is why it's hard to say it's a good idea.

[usickenme]

I dunno, logically it makes sense.

[daroga]

Yes this is true, which is why it's hard to say it's a good idea.I think it's harder to say it's a bad idea--something that would keep buying a gun out of the slow of a crime of passion.

[thrustbucket]

If we really want the government to start deciding which possible impulsive purchases should have wait times on them because of possible detriment to society, maybe we should add more to the list, like Cars or big-ticket appliances. After all, many people sink further into debt and declare bankruptcy......Which isn't good for the economy, right?

Maybe we should have wait times or taxes on all foods deemed unhealthy so fatties with health problems don't weigh down the economy....right?

Maybe the government should pass a law to prevent people that have dated each other less than 6 months from getting married, to help curb the divorce rate and strengthen families..... right?

"Logically", those things might make sense, but it doesn't make them good ideas.

I know buying a car you can't afford, impulsively, isn't usually meant to kill someone, but see where this type of legislation leads?

[CannibalCrowley]

In a nutshell, I think the Brady Bill hasn't been that useful when it comes to stopping outright violent crime with guns. However, the aspects of it for gun tracing is very useful. I do think background checks are a good idea, but the waiting period aspect seems noneffective.

The waiting period hasn’t been a part of the Brady Bill for at least 8 years. It was replaced by the instant background check.

The most useful part of the Brady Bill often goes unused. Under the law, felons who attempt to purchase a firearm can be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to 10 years. Unfortunately this is seldom done. The current laws should be enforced before new ones are implemented.

[camoor]

If we really want the government to start deciding which possible impulsive purchases should have wait times on them because of possible detriment to society, maybe we should add more to the list, like Cars or big-ticket appliances. After all, many people sink further into debt and declare bankruptcy......Which isn't good for the economy, right?

Well you do need a license to operate a car (and apparently it's a priveledge - but I think that part is BS, it should be a damn right). And as for the killer big-ticket appliances - were you watching Maximum Overdrive recently?

Maybe we should have wait times or taxes on all foods deemed unhealthy so fatties with health problems don't weigh down the economy....right?

Maybe the government should pass a law to prevent people that have dated each other less than 6 months from getting married, to help curb the divorce rate and strengthen families..... right?

"Logically", those things might make sense, but it doesn't make them good ideas.

I know buying a car you can't afford, impulsively, isn't usually meant to kill someone, but see where this type of legislation leads?

IMO that's taking the slippery slope a bit far. As far as I can see, these are different issues from that of the right to bear arms.

[thrustbucket]

Well you do need a license to operate a car (and apparently it's a priveledge - but I think that part is BS, it should be a damn right). And as for the killer big-ticket appliances - were you watching Maximum Overdrive recently?



IMO that's taking the slippery slope a bit far. As far as I can see, these are different issues from that of the right to bear arms.

Of course they are different issues. But I am an advocate of government staying out of our lives. I do not want the government to get more use to shimmying it's way into every crack of our lives than they already are. It's a principle thing. Unless you can prove, without any doubt, that waiting periods decrease crime, then it's a dangerous law to freedom, imo.

[daroga]

I know buying a car you can't afford, impulsively, isn't usually meant to kill someone, but see where this type of legislation leads?I can see where you took it, but no, I don't see how mandating a waiting period on my being able to buy a weapon will end up forcing me to wait for three months before I buy a car.

[camoor]

Of course they are different issues. But I am an advocate of government staying out of our lives. I do not want the government to get more use to shimmying it's way into every crack of our lives than they already are. It's a principle thing. Unless you can prove, without any doubt, that waiting periods decrease crime, then it's a dangerous law to freedom, imo.

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind if some scientific data was collected but as someone pointed out it's a difficult statistic to track. Personally I don't see it as a big deal but I respect your opinion.

[thrustbucket]

I can see where you took it, but no, I don't see how mandating a waiting period on my being able to buy a weapon will end up forcing me to wait for three months before I buy a car.

I don't see how a few nut jobs flying planes into buildings would make the government spy on me....er.. um...

sigh... nevermind.

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind if some scientific data was collected but as someone pointed out it's a difficult statistic to track. Personally I don't see it as a big deal but I respect your opinion.
Yeah i don't think there is any. But thanks.

[Ikohn4ever]

WASHINGTON — People will soon be able to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.
The Bush administration said Friday it is overturning a 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricts loaded guns in national parks.
Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge _ but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.
The new rule goes further than a draft proposal issued last spring and would allow concealed weapons even in parks located in states that explicitly ban the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.
"If you can carry (a gun) on Main Street, you are allowed to carry in a national park," said Chris Paolino. a spokesman for the Interior Department.
The Interior Department rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.
Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.
The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.
Story continues below http://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/v/darr.gif



The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.
"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.
The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.
The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.
Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, said no decision had been made on the gun rule.
"President-elect Obama will review all eleventh-hour regulations and will address them once he is president," he said.
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, hailed the new rule. Crapo and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had organized letters to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne complaining about the gun restrictions. The letters were signed by half the Senate _ 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.
"I congratulate Secretary Kempthorne for taking this stand. The rule as it has come out is what we asked for with regard to handguns," Crapo said. "It's a very, very significant improvement."
Crapo called the current rule confusing and complex and said it "literally resulted in different standards as you traveled through the same state."
But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the new rule was a mistake.
"The Reagan-era rules have stood the test of time and make our national parks safe for all who visit them," Feinstein said. "The Bush administration changes will make our national parks more dangerous and will upset the delicate balance that exists between park visitors and wildlife."
Interior spokesman Paolino said the rule would not affect a ban on guns in federal buildings. Guns will still be prohibited in national icons such as Independence Hall and the Statue of Liberty, he said. Guns also will be banned in visitor centers and other buildings at national parks.














Now i am much safer from all those wild animals that I have been attacked by and all the times i have been mugged in National Parks, gotta love back door legislation.

[thrustbucket]

As a concealed weapons permit holder, I don't see the big deal. In all honesty, I had no idea it was illegal to begin with, to carry in a National Park. It's hard enough to remember which states don't honor my permit, but it's bordering on ridiculous when national parks, counties, cities, and any other municipality can arrest me for not knowing the local laws.